linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] of: Add unit tests for applying overlays

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMuHMdWLhLqjNgz6iUOY8LY1Jjn3-_iV2ncbOxYLCLZbf=Rz+w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Apr 2017 13:25:17 +0200
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:     Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, stephen.boyd@...aro.org,
        Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] of: Add unit tests for applying overlays

Hi Frank,

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 2:09 AM,  <frowand.list@...il.com> wrote:
> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...y.com>
>
> Existing overlay unit tests examine individual pieces of the overlay
> code.  The new tests target the entire process of applying an overlay.
>
> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...y.com>
> ---
>
> There are checkpatch warnings.  I have reviewed them and feel they
> can be ignored.
>
>  drivers/of/fdt.c                                 |  14 +-
>  drivers/of/of_private.h                          |  12 +
>  drivers/of/unittest-data/Makefile                |  17 +-
>  drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay.dts             |  53 ++++
>  drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_bad_phandle.dts |  20 ++
>  drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_base.dts        |  80 ++++++
>  drivers/of/unittest.c                            | 317 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>  7 files changed, 505 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
>  create mode 100644 drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay.dts
>  create mode 100644 drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_bad_phandle.dts
>  create mode 100644 drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_base.dts

Shouldn't these be called .dtso instead of .dts?

> --- a/drivers/of/unittest-data/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/of/unittest-data/Makefile

> +# enable creation of __symbols__ node
> +DTC_FLAGS_overlay := -@
> +DTC_FLAGS_overlay_bad_phandle := -@
> +DTC_FLAGS_overlay_base := -@

This flag is needed for all DTs that will be involved with overlays.

Hence what about enabling this globally instead, cfr. "Enable DT symbols when"
CONFIG_OF_OVERLAY is used
("http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg103363.html")?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds